Please share far and wide!

Search This Blog

Saturday, July 11, 2015

LNT versus hormesis

1. The Chernobyl Catastrophe Consequences on Human Health Greenpeace, Amsterdam,
the Netherlands
report/2006/4/chernobylhealthreport.pdf Revised version. Published May 2006.
2. Depositional fluxes and residence time of atmospheric radioiodine (I-131) from the
Fukushima accident Department of Marine Science, University of Southern Mississippi,
1020 Balch Blvd., Stennis Space Center, MS 39529, USA. Journal of Environmental
Radioactivity (Impact Factor: 3.57). 05/2012; 113:32-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.
3. Ionising radiation and risk of death from leukaemia and lymphoma in radiationmonitored
workers (INWORKS): an international cohort study Klervi Leuraud, David B
Richardson, Elisabeth Cardis, Robert D Daniels, Michael Gillies, Jacqueline A O’Hagan,
Ghassan B Hamra, Richard Haylock, Dominique Laurier, Monika Moissonnier, Mary K
Schubauer-Berigan, Isabelle Thierry-Chef, and Ausrele Kesminiene Published 22 June
online by Lancet Haematol 2015; 2: e276–81;
4. A possible association between fetal/neonatal exposure to radiofrequency
electromagnetic radiation and the increased incidence of Autism Spectrum Disorders
(ASD); Kane, Robert C.; Medical Hypotheses , Volume 62 , Issue 2 , 195 - 197.
5. Radiation and Children: The Ignored Victims Nuclear Information and Resource Service
1424 16th Street NW, #404, Washington, DC 20036;202.328.0002; fax: 202.462.2183
6. Strong effects of ionizing radiation from Chernobyl on mutation rates Published 10
February 2015 Møller, Anders Pape & Mousseau, Timothy A.; Scientific Reports 5, Article
number: 8363doi:10.1038/srep08363.
7. Genomic Instability Induced by Ionizing Radiation Streffer, Christian;
Universitätsklinikum Essen, 45122 Essen, Germany PS-1-3.
8. Comparative biology of mouse versus human cells: modelling human cancer in mice
Annapoorni Rangarajan and Robert A. Weinberg December 2003 | VOLUME 3, pp.
9. MIT No-Evacuations Study Debunked Goddard's Journal, Ian Goddard 5 June 2012
10. A Radioactive Conflict of Interest, Robert Alvarez 25 June 2012
11. Biological Research on Low Doses, Operational Issues in Radioactive Waste
Management and Nuclear Decommissioning An International Summer School 6th edition
Giovanetti, Anna; ENEA UTBIORADCR Casaccia Rome, Italy, 8-12 September 2014,
ISPRA JRC (Varese, Italy).
12. The impacts of permanent irradiation on the flora of the eastern ural radioactive trace
Pozolotina VN, Antonova EV, Karimullina EM, Kharitonova OV, Pustovalova LA
Radiatsionnaia Biologiia, Radioecologiia / Rossiiskaia Akademiia Nauk [2009, 49(1):
97-106] Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, English Abstract.
13. Assessment of radiation impact on Stellaria graminea cenopopulations in the zone of
the Eastern Ural Radioactive Trace Russian Journal of Ecology V. N. Pozolotina, E. V.
Antonova, E. M. Karimullina 23 November 2010, Volume 41, Issue 6, pp 459-468
14. Public health activities for mitigation of radiation exposures and risk communication
challenges after the Fukushima nuclear accident Tsutomu Shimura, Ichiro Yamaguchi,
Hiroshi Terada, Erik Robert Svendsen and Naoki Kunugita Department of Environmental
Health, National Institute of Public Health, 2-3-6 Minami, Wako, Saitama 351-0197, Japan.
Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Japan Radiation Research Society
and Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology, Accepted February 16, 2015.
15. Understanding the Health Impacts and Risks of Exposure to Radiation Taylor A. Choi,
Sylvain V. Costes, Rebecca J. Abergel Reflections on the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear
Accident 2 December 2014, pp 259-281.
16. Examples of regulatory costs for nuclear energy development Rod Adams December
7, 2011
17. Radiation Basics Prepared 8/99 by Cindy Folkers, Nuclear Information and Resource
Service, 1424 16th Street, NW, #404, Washington, DC 20036. Phone: 202-328-0002.
Fax: 202-462-2183. E-mail: Web:
18. The toxicity of engineered nanoparticles on seed plants chronically exposed to lowlevel
environmental radiation E. Karimullina, E. Antonova, V. Pozolotina, A. Tokarev, S.
Minko; Russian Journal of Ecology, 28 May 2015, Volume 46, Issue 3, pp 236-245.
19. Radiation: The Myth of the Millirem Nuclear Information and Resource Service 1424
16th Street NW, #404, Washington, DC 20036;202.328.0002; fax: 202.462.2183 http://
20. Compilation of Radiation Studies Showing Health Effects Compiled by Cindy Folkers &
Mary Olson on 4/24/98, Nuclear Information & Resource Service, 1424 16 th St, NW Suite
404, Washington, DC 20036 (202)328-0002
21. “Hormesis”—An Inappropriate Extrapolation from the Specific to the Universal
10/NO 3, JUL/SEP 200, pp. 335-339.
22. ALARA: The History and Science of Radiation Safety Michael Baumer http:// March 14, 2015 Submitted as
coursework for PH241, Stanford University, Winter 2015.
23. Weaknesses in EPA’s Management of the Radiation Network System Demand
Attention Report No. 12-P-0417 19 April 2012
24. RadNet Air Monitoring: Functioning Beta Stations listed by date and operational status
25. Radiation Dose Effects in Relation to Obstetric X-Rays and Childhod Cancers Alice
Stewart, G.W Kneale Department of Social Medicine, University of Oxford, United
Kingdom Volume 295, Issue 7658, 6 June 1970, Pages 1185–1188
26. Tell EPA to keep mobile radiation monitoring lab for nuclear accidents in western U.S.
27. "Dangerous Decision" Could Leave Californians Vulnerable After Nuclear Disaster!/on-air/as-seen-on/Dangerous-Decision-Could-Leave-
28. EPA plan to move radiation lab out of Vegas draws protests 24 June 2015
29. Why the swine
30. Swine as Models in Biomedical Research and Toxicology Testing Michael M. Swindle,
Veterinary Pathology 2012, 49(2) 344-356; Medical University of South Carolina,
Department of Comparative Medicine, MSC 777, 114 Doughty St, Charleston, SC
31. Deconstructing Radiation Hormesis Mossman, Kenneth L. Arizona State University,
Tempe, AZ 85287-3501 Health Phys. 80(3):263–269; 2001
32. Implications for human and environmental health of low doses of ionising radiation
Radiobiology and Environmental Security Carmel E. Mothersill, Colin B. Seymour pp.
43-51 Department of Medical Physics and Applied Radiation Sciences, McMaster
University, Hamilton, L8S 4K1, ON, Canada.
33. Radiological Bioconcentration Factors for Aquatic,Terrestrial, and Wetland Ecosystems
at the Savannah River Site (U) G.P. Friday, C.L. Cummins, and A.L. Schwartzman
Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under contract no. DE-AC09-89SR18035
34. Health Effects of Prenatal Radiation Exposure PAMELA M. WILLIAMS, LT COL, USAF,
MC, David Grant Medical Center, Travis Air Force Base, California STACY FLETCHER,
CAPT, USAF, MC, Ehrling Bergquist Clinic, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska Am Fam
Physician. 2010 Sep 1;82(5):488-493.
35. The Impact of Radiotherapy on Fertility, Pregnancy, and Neonatal Outcomes of Female
Cancer Patients Jennifer Y. Wo, M.D. and Akila N. Viswanathan, M.D., M.P.H. J Radiation Oncololgy Biology /
Physics 2009 Apr 1; 73(5): 1304–1312.
36. Biological Effects of Radiation USNRC Technical Training Center Reactor Concepts
37. The Impact of Uterine Radiation on Subsequent Fertility and Pregnancy Outcomes
BioMed Research International Wan Tinn Teh, Catharyn Stern, Sarat Chander, and Martha
Hickey Volume 2014 (2014), Article ID
482968, 8 pages.
38. Residential radon exposure and risk of lung cancer in never smoking women María
Torres Duran, Alberto Ruano Ravina, Isaura Parente Lamelas, Virginia Leiro Fernandez,
José Abal Arca, Carmen Montero Martinez, Carolina Pena ALvarez, Javier Gonzalez
Barcala, Olalla Castro Añon, Antonio Golpe Gomez, Cristina Martínez, Maria Jose Mejuto
Martí, Alberto Fernandez Villar and Juan Miguel Barros Dios, ERJ September 1, 2014 vol.
44 no. Suppl 58 P2734.
39. Geographic variation in radon and associated lung cancer risk in Canada Perry
Hystad, Michael Brauer, Paul A. Demers, Kenneth C. Johnson, Eleanor Setton, Alejandro
Cervantes-Larios, Karla Poplawski, Alana McFarlane, Alan Whitehead, Anne-Marie Nicol
40. Differences in Lung Cancer Mortality Trends From 1986–2012 By Radon Risk Areas in
British Columbia, Henderson, Sarah B.; Rauch, Stephen A.; Hystad, Perry; Kosatsky, Tom,
Canada Health Physics: May 2014 - Volume 106 - Issue 5 - p 608–613
41. What are the risks from medical X-rays and other low dose radiation? B F Wall, BSc, ,
G M Kendall, PhD, , A A Edwards, MSc, , S Bouffler, PhD, , C R Muirhead, PhD, , and J R
Meara, FFPH, Health Protection Agency, Radiation Protection Division, Centre for
Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon. OX11 0RQ, UK
42. What Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima can teach about the next one
Edward Moore Geist April 28, 2014
43. Knowing Endangerment: Worker Exposure to Toxic Vapors at the Hanford Tank Farms
September 2003 The Government Accountability Project (GAP)
44. Hanford Tank Vapor Assessment Report Savannah River National Laboratory October
30, 2014 SRNL-RP-2014-00791
45. Measures against increased environmental radiation dose by the TEPCO Fukushima
Dai-ichi NPP accident in some local governments in the Tokyo metropolitan area, T. Iimoto,
H. Fujii, S. Oda, T. Nakamura, R. Hayashi, R. Kuroda, M. Furusawa, T. Umekage and Y.
Ohkubo Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2012
46. 250 mSv: Temporary Increase in the Emergency Exposure Dose Limit in Response to
the TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi NPP Accident and Its Decision Making Process Shojiro
Yasui Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Volume 12, Issue 4, 2015 pp.
47. Long term behavior of radioactive plume of TEPCO FNPP1 released 134Cs and
137Cs in the North Pacific Ocean through the end of 2014 Aoyama, Michio; Tsumune,
Daisuke; Tsubono, Takaki; Hamajima, Yasunori; Kumamoto, Yuichiro EGU General
Assembly 2015, held 12-17 April, 2015 in Vienna, Austria. id.3132
48. Radiocaesium activity concentrations in macrofungi from Galicia (NW Spain): Influence
of environmental and genetic factors M.A. Garcíaa, J. Alonsoa, b, M.J. Melgara,
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety Volume 115, May 2015, pp. 152–158.
49. Radioactivity studies on farm raised and wild catfish produced in Mississippi, USA J.
Billa, F. Han, S. Didla, H. Yu, J. Dimpah, O. Brempong, S. Adzanu Journal of
Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry May 2015 doi: 10.1007/s10967-015-4159-5.
50. ML15051A503 Marcus
51. ML15057A349 Miller
52. ML15075A200 Doss et al


  1. At the end of the day, these are just models. No one has published results of any effects just to the right hand side of zero. LNT is a hypothesis and the hypothesis has never been tested to the first instance of a recognized non zero dose level because the bar is arbitrary. We know from atom bomb victim data, now some 70+ years old, that there is a linear relationship for data down to an established 0.1 Sv acute level for deterministic consequences. We know acute is much more harmful than chronic. What we dont know is that as the exposure moves closer and closer to zero, that uncertainty and sensitivity becomes murky. There are literally trillions of confounder attributes that go unexamined. Most people who misuse LNT think of the old adage "the only way not to get wet is to stay our of the rain". The rest try to cobble lots of references to look for the smoking gun. Either way; LNT isnt science and makes for comparative risk policy. It will remainl a hypothesis that will never make the leap to fact because the actual number just to the right of zero will never be agreed upon. The "No Safe Dose" crowd will never admit to prove their claim, that life on this planet is tied to our natural radioactive makeup. You are either energy, matter, or in between at any one time. Jump into a whole body cpunter to see for yourself. We as organic beings are always wrestling with our radioactive selves. When you understand that, you will understand LNT is just a canard. You can erase this message, but it wont make LNT come true. You still have to live with your own radioactive make up. Your life clock has already been established by your very make up. It doesn't matter if you walk around in a lead bubble or eat organic, which is not zero radioactive. You cant get your exposure while on this planet to zero. The rain never stops.

    1. wow that rattled the trolls cage a whole page of lies

    2. Sheesh, the trolls really make it easy. Roll out their whole lame playbook all at once.

  2. all docs for Comment to NRC LNT v Hormesis - last update afternoon 12 July Addendum A includes RadNet contractual information

  3. Dr. Rosalie Bertell: "The linear dose-response has been claimed to be correct for some fifty years. However, although they claim they believe it, nuclear scientists modify it for low dose and low dose rate (making it not really linear). For example, the Atomic bomb data would predict, by linear dose response, about 17 - 20 cancer deaths per 100 Person Sievert exposure to radiation. BEIR and UNSCEAR reduced this estimate by about 2 because of low dose effect, to about 10 cancer deaths per 100 Person Sievert. Then ICRP took the BEIR and UNSCEAR estimates and reduced them by 2 because of the slow dose rate, to 5 cancer deaths per 100 Person Sieverts, which is now used by the nuclear industry. This latter reduction is now 1.5 instead of 2, allowing for more deaths. In my opinion there is no scientific data on humans to support these two reductions from linear. There is some obscure lab data. Our studies showed the true curve to be supra(above) the linear."

    Hormesis is a failed idea -- that a little bit of radiation is somehow a good thing. Failed idea that only gains any traction because the pro-nuclear folks would have you believe that radiation is 'not so lethal' all the time.

    Herman J. Mueller, 1927 paper, 1946 Nobel, exposure to x rays causes breaks in the what we came to understand is DNA -- genetic mutations, in other words. Nothing good about genetic damage, is there?

    "... there is no amount of radiation so small that it has no ill effects at all on anybody. There is actually no such thing as a minimum permissible dose. Perhaps we are talking about only a very small number of individual tragedies - the number of atomic age children with cancer, the new victims of leukemia, the damage to skin tissues here and reproductive systems there - perhaps these are too small to measure with statistics. But they nevertheless loom very large indeed in human and moral terms.

    Radiation, in its simplest terms - figuratively, literally and chemically - is poison. Nuclear explosions in the atmosphere are slowly but progressively poisoning our air, our earth, our water and our food. And it falls, let us remember, on both sides of the Iron Curtain, on all peoples of all lands, regardless of their political ideology, their way of life, their religion or the color of their skin. Beneath this bombardment of radiation which man has created, all men are indeed equal."

    ~~~~~~~ John F. Kennedy (US President, Jan '61 – Nov '63) 1960

    2015 -- raising the levels of 'acceptable' exposure, trying to pass the idea that 100mSv is somehow safe or acceptable is nothing less than condoning premeditated murder. As Dr. John Gofman said:

    “… If you pollute when you do know there is no safe dose with respect to causing extra cases of deadly cancers or heritable effects, you are committing premeditated random murder.”

    – John W. Gofman, Ph.D., M.D. (1918-2007), associate director, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 1963-1969) — Comments on a Petition for Rulemaking to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, May 21, 1994.”

    1. Great comment. Fighting back against the lies of the nuclear cartel.


Insightful and Relevant if Irreverent Comments